1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Delaware Court Rejects Extrinsic Facts In Determining Duty to Defend Additional Insured

    Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLPApril 10, 2012

    In Pike Creek Chiropractic Center, P.A. v. Robinson, 637 A.2d 418 (Del. 1994), the court considered extrinsic evidence from the underlying case, where discovery had already been completed, to determine whether the insured’s contractual duty to defend was triggered. Likewise, in American Ins. Group v. Risk Enterprise Management, Ltd., 761 A.2d 826 (Del. 2000), the court held that notwithstanding the general rule that a duty to defend is based on the four corners of the complaint, consideration of extrinsic facts was allowed in determining a duty to defend a third-party action where discovery was completed in the first party action and, in fact, the first party action had already settled. The Premcor court noted that Pike Creek and American Ins. Group were exceptions to the rule and limited to situations where “a complete discovery record had been developed and the underlying litigation was resolved.”